2014 Australian Grand Prix

Red Bull have lost their appeal against Daniel Ricciardo’s disqualification from the Australian Grand Prix following a hearing of the FIA Court of Appeal in Paris.

The FIA issued a statement saying: “The court, after having heard the parties and examined their submissions, decided to uphold the decision number 56 of the stewards by which they decided to exclude Infiniti Red Bull Racing’s car number three from the results of the 2014 Australian Grand Prix.

An FIA Court of Appeal was convened yesterday in Paris to hear Red Bull’s appeal.

Red Bull issued a statement saying it accepts the verdict of the court:

“Infiniti Red Bull Racing accepts the ruling of the International Court of Appeal today.

“We are of course disappointed by the outcome and would not have appealed if we didn’t think we had a very strong case. We always believed we adhered to the technical regulations throughout the 2014 Australian Grand Prix.

“We are sorry for Daniel (Ricciardo) that he will not be awarded the 18 points from the event, which we think he deserved. We will continue to work very hard to amass as many points as possible for the team, Daniel and Sebastian (Vettel) throughout the season.

“We will now move on from this and concentrate on this weekend’s Chinese Grand Prix.”

Ricciardo said: “It’s disappointing not to get the 18 points from Australia, but if anything it gives me more motivation to get back on the podium as soon as possible.

“I’ve had a few setbacks in the first couple of races this year, but in Bahrain I demonstrated that, if anything, I’m stronger for it and hungrier than ever to get back on the podium. Not that I need any more motivation, I’m pumped!

“I’m still really happy with my performance in Australia and for having had the experience of being on the podium in front of the home crowd. I said that week, I’d rather have a great race, finish on the podium and then be excluded than to have had a rubbish race and then retire with a car problem halfway through.”

The FIA will publish a full reasoning for the verdict later this week.

He’s a good bloke in a good team. I’m sorry for him because he really deserved the points as a driver. It’s a bit unfair to punish the driver for infringement of technical regulation which is in my opinon responsibilty of the team. I cannot fathom what sense does it make to punish a driver because turbocharger on his car failed and hence destroyed the engine. The best solution would be to strip off the points from the team in the constructor’s table. The driver should be punished in the case of sporting regulation infringement. This isue was a bit more complexed because it resulted in performance gain but I am sure there are better solutions.
RBR team showed they are behind their man. However, the way they dealt with the issue was imature, not to mention Christian’s behaviour in the Court room. I find extremely disrespecful to use smartphone ( in any way ) during the hearing. They should also learn that you must never question the system. I can’t help not thinking about one guy who was a pure genius in the situations like this. To bad he’s is enjoying fishing too much to bother with F1 anymore.

What an odd statement. If the fuel sensors were broken how would they know if they broke the rules?

It will be interesting the reasons they chose to come to this conclusion as they accepted Red Bulls measurements were accurate after Melbourne, they accepted the sensors broke (and therefore can break) as they did on Dan’s car in Malaysia and on the STRs.
On top of this its debatable whether you can be punished on a technical derivative (which isn’t a regulation).
So yeah, interested on the reasoning used and how it will effect others when the sensors are faulty again.

Of cause you should be punished for not following technical directives. If not why would anybody else follow them? There are loads of things in there that could give you an advantage should you ignore them, like the camber and toe-in on the tires if I’m not mistaken.

FIA clearly said that Daniel’s car was above the fuel limit throughout the race except the SC period & some 4 laps. He gained performance benefits cause of higher fuel flow while McLaren was chasing him down. Also FIA said either the sensor is a dud and reports no reading or it’s accurate & faulty sensors can be replaced and fuel flow should be calibrated as per the new sensor. It was obvious RBR were playing beyond the rules and were rightly punished. Also FIA said vettels car was legal, the problem with Daniels car was RBR ignored FIA directive to calibrate fuel flow as per sensor.

I don’t think RBR cheated, I can’t understand why Charlie didn’t give RIC a black flag if RBR continued all race with the sensor showing 101 kg/hr .
All this crap could have been avoided had Horner just been told , ” comply or park the car”
By Charlie Whiting !

In a way I can see that, but on the other hand I’m not sure that’s how it works, or can, or should. I think the fact that it took the stewards 5 1/2 hours to decide to dsq DR means there were things to consider, and perhaps things too complex for CW to play judge and jury during the race.

That said, surely Horner must have had at least some small if not greater concern that ignoring the FIA would not go unpunished, but thought he could appeal his way through it based on his own take on things.

Because their argument is that the sensor is faulty. If the sensor is truly not working, then Ric probably wouldn’t be disqualified. My guess is that it turns out that either the sensor is working as intended but RB felt that it wasn’t accurate enough thus using their own measurement (which if I’m not mistaken, Ric was constantly at 101Kg/hr for the last 4 laps, basically while being chased by Mag, so it was convenient for them to use their own measurement or Ric might be overtaken by Mag) or the faulty sensor is an installation fault (by RB) or the sensor was really faulty but RB didn’t do the correct procedure for using the backup measurement method.
Basically, Ric wasn’t disqualified immediately because there was a chance that the measuring device was really broken.

This is the result i was hoping for it is sad for Daniel but you cannot just go around ignoring Tech Directives as and when it suits you. Truthfully I believe that this was the only possible outcome even if RedBull showed they ran at 98kg/h the whole race.

When Newey yesterday admitted they gained 0.4 per lap by not decreasing their fuel flow as instructed, I’ve had a feeling the verdict must be like this. It was either this or completely scrapping the fuel flow restriction rule.

You’re phrasing that completely wrong. They avoided to lose 0,4 seconds by not decreasing fuel flow to, what they feelt, was below the legal limit due to a faulty sensor. And how 1% difference in fuel flow equals almost half a tenth I have no idea how accurate that really is

It will be interesting to see the full verdict. I have a feeling there’s more than what is communicated today. The scrapping of the sensors for future races or a change in how they are used?

Red Bull accepted the verdict immediately and I don’t think they would have done so unless they got something for their effort.

There was never a chance the appeal would have succeeded as that would have possibly “tainted” 3 races. I believe Red Bull was very much aware of this and used the hearing as pressure to change something for the future.

Good to have this one clear so we can get on with the season. Was a stupid (arrogant even?) decision by RBR to ignore what the FIA told them to. I fully expect the team to quickly catch up, push Renault to make the engine work to their advantage again and fight for the title this year!

Well, probably everybody expected such decision. On the other hand, FIA should sort out their sensor problem. Sensors should be bullet proof at this stage, because teams are competing and it might influence results, and FIA are responsible for that. It’s pinnacle of motorsports after all. Teams are required to come to terms with highly complex new regulations this year, while FIA can’t sort such simple thing as fuel flow sensor.

Such a clueless statement… these devices are not ‘simple fuel flow sensors’ and it’s not like there’s a jurry-rigged twist-valve that slows the fuel or anything. They’re industry-grade ultrasonic sensors that measure up to ~130ml of fluid per second without impeding the flow of the fuel what so ever, something rarely explored in competitive motorsport.

Firstly, no sensor can ever be bulletproof or 100% accurate, more so if the sensor is a passive sensor – there is always an accepted variance/error rate.

Secondly, Gill officially state that ~52% of the sensors are accurate to within 0.1%, with 92% of units produced accurate to within 0.25% (source), with this value guarenteed for 30 days from manufacture. There’s no documentation regarding the remaining 8%, but i’d imagine in such a case they would be identified and replaced ahead of competitive running.

If a sensor is mis-reading or fails, the unit can be swapped out (outside of competitive running) or operated with an accepted correction value of ~4% in order to comply with the regulations. If the unit has failed, a backup system, such as the engine fuel injectors/fuel rail, can be used, provided it is operated under FIA guidance with the correction value.

Any argument that the FIA needs to ‘sort their sensors’ is either a gross-misunderstanding, a massive simplification or intentional misdirection.

Any discussion of the issue also regularly bypasses the fact that Red Bull Racing, Toro Rosso and Lotus F1 have all been caught modifying their sensors so as to make them easier to fit – it’s no secret that these 3 teams have had the most issues with the meters reading consistently either. The FIA has issued a (heh) Technical Directive stating that as of Barcelona, no sensor can be modified what so ever.

@optimaximal Well, I’m not an expert and I don’t have big understanding of fuel flow sensors. My point was that they should be more reliable, bacause there already have been a few failures, therefore they should be made as more reliable. But anyway, thank you for explaining the whole thing to me. :)

@optimaximal The values in the data-sheet are produced under lab conditions as long as they don’t provide details on the testing procedures/conditions the FWHM value of .1% means pretty much nothing.
What’s frustrating about this problem is that folks from Audi and Porsche complained about the sensor’s sensitivity to temperature and vibrations back in October and the first F1 tests revealed similar issues. But instead of being all over this from the beginning they procrastinated until it hit them over their head.
That RBR did wrong is out of the question but the FIA was in all this the FIA one more time.

I do not feel like this explanation is getting FIA off the hook. According to these figures, about half of the sensors cannot do better than 0.25% reliability. Now a quarter of % of a typical lap time is something like 0.25 sec difference, which is a lot. Of course, a certain delta in fuel delivery does not directly translate to the same delta in engine output, which in turn does not translate directly to difference in speed, so I wonder. I think the relevant question is whether FIA can guarantee a sensor precision that would not influence lap time by more than 0.01 sec or so. It seems that right now the answer is no, which is very worrying.

I don’t think you can correlate the same inaccuracy on flow as lap time as the cars are not at full throttle all the time. What you can say is that power is related to fuel flow, thus with say a maximum of 600 BHP a 0.25% drop in fuel flow could equate to a drop in power of 1.5 BHP

@matt90
Well that’s precisely the point. For half of the sensors they can guarantee error not larger than 0.10% For the other half thay could not, and the next best thing they can guarantee is 0.25% for some 40% of sensors. This suggests that the error is around this figure or more for the other half, because if it were smaller, say, 0.15%,for a significant portion of sensors, then they would tell us (makes them look better).
If course this is just a guess, the crucial question really is what real precision in lap time they are capable of achieving reliably and consistently. So far I havn’t seen any word on that.

@petebaldwin – flow restrictors with such a high precision are pretty complicated too. Toyota has developed one but F1 not only restricts the max. fuel flow it also restricts the flow below 10500 rpm (based on the torque map afaik) – a variable flow rate is something a restrictor can’t handle.

That’s simple, a restrictor will pass more liquid given a higher dP. Liquids are fairly incompressible so by measuring velocity using an ultrasonic device it does not matter what the dP is, just the density

Again you would have to assume that the cars are at full throttle all the time for that to be true and clearly that cannot be so. The device is to stop you exceeding 100 kg/hr so if it is out by 0.25% then the allowance is down to 99.75 kg/hr!!!! or 100.25 kg/hr

@sars No, the FIA has mandated an error rate of 0% above the fuel flow limit and that 0.25% below. The sensor is considered not acceptable if the error allows it to go above the allotted 100kg/hr flow.

@osvaldas31 I would also point out that in fact not everybody expected this decision. Not even close.

Many thought that RBR would win their appeal by proving they did not in fact exceed the 100kg/hr flow rate during the race (and qualifying). Some even suggested, including RBR, that somehow things that have happened since Australia would make their case stronger, when in fact anything after Australia would have nothing to do with the circumstances of the Australian GP for which they were penalized.

Some even suggested that because their performance since Australia while presumably complying with the regs, particularly DR’s, has been half-decent, they must not have had that much of an advantage from ignoring the FIA in Australia, and therefore should be let off the hook. Wishful thinking, methinks.

Some have even suggested a conspiracy against RBR to ensure they do not bore the audience with a fifth Championship in a row.

Brilliant…conspiracy theories. As has been pointed out before in this thread, the result of the panel had NOTHING to do with fuel flow and EVERYTHING to do with laying down a marker that the Technical Directives DO hold regulatory value.

Any other response from the FIA would have invalidate the Technical Directives which are used to correct holes in the regulations (McLaren’s brake/steer device springs to mind, the Renault “sprung mass” they used in the nose is another example).

No conspiracy theory, this would have happened to ANY team because it was (to the FIA, and I agree) the ONLY possible response to their challenge to their power to regulate the championship.

So if the punishment should fit the crime what the hell happened to Mercedes for the test last year? I disagree with most of the comments here who are having a crack at RBR. If the FIA’s sensor had a history of erroneous readings (which it did) and RBR were instructed to re-install a sensor proven to be previously faulty (which they were) and then it played up again why would you not ignore the instruction and trust your own data, which would have had a lot more money thrown at the development of trustworthy readouts than a sensor?

At the end of the day RBR have been punished not for breaking the 100kg/he rule but for ignoring the FIA’s instruction to turn the engine down to make the sensor read less than 100kg/hr. If RBR had exceeded 100kg/hr then the FIA would have shouted that from the rooftops. But it didn’t, thus why Horner was so confident of victory. That and the ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT from the Merc case last year regarding the validity of TDs.

I think that RBR were unfairly punished for the unreliability of the FIA sensors and for the FIA sticking their head in the sand over the well-documented issues they were having. Instead of seeing sense they have simply said you didn’t do as we ask, regardless of whether you actually broke the fuel flow limit or not doesn’t matter, you ignored us, you get disqualified.

Now just imagine if the FIA had taken the same approach to Merc’s test last year? Not just a no-show at a YDT as the punishment, but actual removal of points – that would have been a punishment that fitted the crime, as everyone knows in-season private testing has been banned for years (outside of the FIA approved test days of course). Not just a one-off finish either – a punishment of similar proportions for their ‘crime’ should have included a multi race ban.

To me a more appropriate punishment would have been a reinstatement of Ricciardo’s place and drivers championship points but 0 constructors points. I mean how is the team managing the fuel flow within the legal limit using alternative and more accurate means (therefore being within the rules) worse than what McLaren did in 2007, yet their drivers kept their points?

I think the anti-RBR sentiment that has built up because of finger-boy and the last four years has even filtered through to the FIA. Even they will ignore their own precedents and punish them in the hope someone else wins the championship this year.

@clay I disagree completely, and it starts with the fact that this issue this year has nothing to do with last year’s Pirelli tire test, and the two scenarios are not comparable.

So far we haven’t heard the FIA’s exact reasoning for upholding their decision, so you cannot claim it is because of any one specific thing, and I would suggest the very reason the team was warned during the weekend is that RBR was indeed breaching the flow rate of 100 and the FIA were indeed shouting it from the rooftops by giving RBR a chance to comply…at least they did that…they warned RBR and got ignored for it.

This is not about some imagined anti-RBR sentiment. What it is about is something the FIA will soon announce when they explain their reasoning for upholding their decision to disqualify DR.

Firstly, in what world is it fair for the teams to measure their own fuel?!
So, for qualifying in China, if Kimi Raikkonen refuses to be weighed, then pops along to the FIA later and says “oh, I’ve just weighed myself at the Ferrari garage, and I weight X kg”, that’s apparently okay, as long as Ferrari have invested more money into their scales?!

Again, removal of points from Mercedes wouldn’t have worked. Which points should they lose? The technical infringement occured outside of a race weekend, so to tamper with any result would be illogical.

And why on earth should Ricciardo keep his points? He was driving an illegal car!
Let’s suppose that Red Bull make a version of their X2014 and bring that to china. And every other race this year. Yep, WDC number 5 for, as you called him, “Finger-Boy”. According to your logic, Red Bull should be disqualified from the constructors championship, but Vettel should keep all his points and thus his 5th title. Fair? I think not.
As mentioned above by CyclopsPL and BasCB, they admitted that they would have lost second had they turned their engine down.

Before you accuse me of being “anti-RBR”, save your breath. I’m not anti RBR, I’m just seeing things logically. As with drive-throughs for unsafe releases, this isn’t fair on the driver, but unfortunately it is the only feasible punishment.

You are missing the core issue. The FIA told them they were non compliant to the regulations and then RB ignored them. The numbers and figures don’t matter. The FIA is the law in F1 like it or not. And as we have all observed the law is not always fair.

@clay To compare this to Merc’s transgression misses one of the major points of that case…Charlie Whiting made a mistake and gave what appeared to be permission to Merc for them to conduct the test.

In addition, to take away the team points but not the driver points would be to rob the other points scoring finishers who did comply by the rules. And how is that fair? What you’re saying there is “RBR, you misbehaved and ran your car in contravention of our orders – lose your points. Sorry to those positioned 2 -> 10, you lose out in the championship despite the fact that the car which beat you wasn’t running legally.” Doesn’t hang together in my mind.

SPANISH DRIVER FERNANDO ALONSO will race at his home Grand Prix in Valencia this weekend after the FIA Court of Appeal overturned Renault’s one-race suspension.

The French outfit was penalised by stewards at the Hungarian Grand Prix for releasing Alonso from his pit box before his front right wheel had been properly fitted. The wheel subsequently came loose and was launched from the car on his out lap.

The original ban was against the Renault team, not just Alonso. And I’m pretty sure it was the team’s decision to send Alonso back out on track when they knew full well there was no wheet nut on the tyre. It wasn’t like Ricciardo where they stopped him straight away. If I remember rightly that incident came soon after Henry Surtees was killed by a tyre as well so in retrospect I think they got away with one there by avoiding the ban.

I wasn’t following F1 back then but Ferrari launched an appeal when their car was disqualified in one of the last races of the 1999 season and thus gave Hakkinen the title. They won their appeal but Hakkinen won the championship anyway.

@full-throttle-f1: That wasn’t an appeal against a stewards’ decision. Brawn (and others) got an opinion from the FIA before the season that double diffusers were legal. Other teams protested the double diffusers at the first race (I think they can only protest after something has been used in competition) and the FIA confirmed their earlier opinion that they were legal.

For Spygate, weren’t both Hamilton and Alonso allowed to keep their WDC points, but McLaren weren’t awarded WCC points in Hungary and ultimately excluded from the WCC altogether? If I remember correctly, and if that was done via appeal.

F199player’s recollection of Jarno Trulli’s exclusion from the 2001 United States Grand Prix is an interesting one. He finished fourth for Jordan but the stewards found his plank was worn beneath the legal limit. Jordan won the appeal – held two weeks after the end of the championship – on a legal technicality by pointing out one of the stewards had been missing from the hearing at the circuit…

Note that Trulli was also involved in a post-race redistribution of points in 2009 when he was reinstated in the results of the Australian Grand Prix and Lewis Hamilton was excluded. However this was not the result of an appeal by Toyota, but the stewards reopening their investigation after new information came to light (Toyota originally lodged an appeal but withdrew it when they realised it would be inadmissible on the ground that you cannot protest what is to all intents and purposes a drive-through penalty).

It would have cause major problems. Red Bull’s argument seemed to rely on the idea that technical directives aren’t rules. There are loads of technical directives and if all of them suddenly ceased to be rules, the sport would fall apart.

The FIA CoA were never going to rule any differently. The appeal from RBR was based on the legal force of Technical Directives. For RBR to win the appeal the FIA would have to agree that the TDs are impotent and can be ignored which goes against many years of precedent of teams including RBR implicitly agreeing that the TDs clarify and define the rules. Furthermore if the TDs could be ignored for this year, then 2014 would turn into a farce allowing teams to interpret the rules in anyway that keeps to the letter of them without worrying about TDs making their interpretation illegal. I think RBR knew this and just wanted to hang out the dirty laundry in public.

@jimbo – I completely agree, directives are not some soft suggestion from the FIA, they are mechanism by which the regulations are applied. Red Bull knew this, they knew that the FIA’s case was indefensible, as did most people, so why on earth did they adopt a facade of such supreme confidence? I have to say I am thoroughly disliking the character of Red Bull in 2014, with this nonsensical appeal and significant figures within the team criticizing the state of F1 at a time when they are conveniently not winning…

@william-brierty – I suppose going into court saying “we’re probably in the wrong but thought we’d have a go anyway….” wouldn’t do your case any favours!

I agree though, Ferrari and Red Bull complaining about F1 because they aren’t winning is really sad… Ferrari have already proved this time and time again but it’s a shame to see that Red Bull are also such bad losers!

@petebaldwin – I blame Red Bull for appealing in the first place. Every single scrap of information regarding the incident that has emerged since the race has made Red Bull’s case look more hopeless. The fact that Red Bull appealed with a case so impossible, coupled with recent well-publicized remarks against the sport, makes them appear utterly anti-systemic and certainly a bit “too big for their boots”…

@william-brierty I don’t like this side of F1 that much, but it was always political. The roles of the teams change over the years but there is not 1 single top team out there that wouldn’t go a similar route.

@tmf42 – I disagree, I’ve found the debate around this appeal highly interesting, and it is very significant. In broad brush strokes, it is the most dominant team of recent years making a fundamental structural challenge to the sport’s governance; the term “significant” doesn’t quite cut it. That said, some the quotes from Red Bull in recent years, and the manner in which they ignored directives intended to help them, leaves a rather bitter taste in the mouth…

I think that it is not a fair verdict. I think they should be punished more. We all have the sense that RedBull is always in the borderline of legality and that they always try to find a way to “cheat”. As Mercedes said, we must be sure they will never try again, they should be excluded of the Aus GP results and one additional one at least!

I disagree, and you are also misquoting Mercedes. Mercedes made the point that they should have a suspended ban as a warning, but this was gamesmanship and nothing more.

This is exactly the correct result. FIA says “do this” and you do it, otherwise you will lose that result. An additional ban would be unfair to RBR…from which race? If they have a double retirement can they elect to be excluded from that race?! Or do the FIA wait and ban them from their best race of the season?!

No, there is no need for an additional race ban or a suspended sentence. What has happened here is the FIA has made the point that they have the power to DSQ *if required* – there is the threat to RBR. And repeated transgressions would allow the FIA the chance to up the ante.

I would refine that opening comment by saying that despite the fact that Red Bull had a decent(ish) case, they were never going to win the appeal. The FIA’s case was all too fundamental, arguing, I think correctly, that directives are mechanisms under which the regulations are applied, and that, in a manner similar to how a driver is only deemed to have gained a “lasting” advantage by going off track if other drivers don’t take a similar line, because other teams, such as Force India, obeyed the directive, Red Bull received a lasting advantage over the rest of the field. This made Red Bull’s position essentially indefensible.

After reading an article linked from one of yesterday’s topics with quotes from Horner, I was more convinced than ever that the term directive has been used in a bit of a manipulative way. The article states that the directive came before the season began. Whiting has also stated that it is in the rules that the sensors sanctioned by FIA and homologated shall be the method of measurement.

So I think that it has been a bit manipulative to try to claim that directives are not enforceable, when in fact it was not directives RBR was being given in Australia, along with other teams…it was warnings…that they were breaking the rules. The initial articles announcing DR’s dsq talked of the teams being warned about exceeding the flow rate…warnings…not suggestions, directives, opinions, nor any other term that sounds more like guidance and hand-holding.

So since the technical directive, and the written rule too, were in place before the season began, RBR knew full well the intention from the FIA that the fuel flow sensors would be the method of measurement, and RBR knew they were being given a chance to heed the warnings during the Australian weekend but ignored them anyway. And their case did not just depend on some claim that a directive is not an enforceable reg…they were also going to claim better accuracy with their measurement and some proof that they never exceeded the proper flow rate, which was never the point since said claims came from measurements not done at the Gill sensor.

@robbie – In the case that the directive was in place before the season began, something I did not know (so thank you), Red Bull’s case was more than indefensible, it was impossible.

And even if we put to one side the real nature of the FIA’s instructions, whether they were opinion-based directives or concrete warnings, something we will not know until the full case is published, a key part of the FIA’s case is breaking this assumption that because directives are opinion-based, they have little real gravity, because, to quote the FIA’s representative “it is only by adhering to the technical directive that teams can prove compliance with the technical regulation”, or in other words, directives are mechanisms by which the regulations are applied.

And it is because the technical directive was in place prior to the race, and that other competitors, such as Force India, adhered to the FIA’s recommendations, that the FIA had no case to answer to. Personally, I think Red Bull is set to be penalized further…

@william-brierty See from April 13th’s article by Keith “Quieter engines ‘better for F1′-Mosely” the link to “Red Bull appeal is first test of F1’s new era (Reuters)” and you will find the words under the heading Technical Directives regarding the directive being pre-season.

As to RBR being punished further, I’m not sure they will be or that it is necessary, but I do feel that RBR was being treated more than fairly during the Australian weekend by being given a chance to comply and preventing this all from happening. So in that sense maybe you are right and the fact that the FIA tried to help them, and instead got ignored and basically were told they (RBR) knew better, perhaps should mean they’re ‘on parole’ for the rest of the season, or something like Mercedes is pushing for.

Perhaps some are right who have suggested since Australia that Horner knew he was playing with fire but figured a) if they obeyed the warnings they would have scored less points anyway, and b) this brought the issue to the forefront, and also c) he might not have been immediately defaulting in his own mind that the consequence might be a dsq, but rather that he could argue his way down to something far less severe like a grid drop for the next race, or a fine, because of his proof of them never breaching 100kg/hr.

@william-brierty , @robbie – Good discussion. When RBR started using the argument that directives are not regulations and they need not comply, it was akin to admitting they didn’t have much else to go on. Either the FIA is in charge of regulation compliance and enforcement, or not. As we can see, they are in charge.

I also think the FIA was very fair in this case, especially giving RBR the chance to comply during the race. Also glad the call from Mercedes to penalize RBR further was ignored. The penalties incurred already were already severe enough and RBR has been in compliance since Australia as far as we know.

@robbie – Thanks for the link, I probably should have read that at the time!

Regarding further punishment, whilst I don’t think it is necessary in that Red Bull were merely staying true to form in sailing close to wind, and they genuinely had no intention to break the regulation because of their faith in the fuel rail sensor, I do think something like a suspended race ban is heading their way.

I think that because the directives, as you say, were the FIA trying to aid Red Bull in sticking to the regulations, but more broadly the fact that Red Bull ignored the directive whilst others didn’t arguably shows a near cultural disdain for higher authority. Whilst you could validly argue that that’s what won Red Bull eight world titles, from the FIA’s perspective, such a flagrant and aloof disregard of the directive will surely warrant further sanctions.

@bullmello – Whilst I agree that the penalties already imposed are harsh enough, I don’t think Mercedes’ call to impose further sanctions, which was unsurprisingly reciprocated by all other rival teams in attendance, has been ignored. I’m not entirely sure about this, but from what I understand the hearing is not yet over. All that has been established is Red Bull’s “guilt”, and tomorrow the subsequent course of action will be discussed, with it being certain that Ricciardo’s disqualification will be upheld, however I believe there is the option to impose further penalties.

@william-brierty Fair comment regarding further sanctions but I wonder if that would only be to formally put ‘on paper’ something akin to ‘do it again and here’s what will happen’ whereas I’m inclined to think that message is now obvious as to what the consequence is of doing again what they did in Australia. Is that what you mean by a suspended race ban?

It’s just a small point on my part but I thought what we were waiting for from FIA was further detail on why they declined RBR’s appeal, not on what further punishment they will impose…other than to my thinking RBR has to pay the ‘court costs’ as they were the one’s to prolong the decision by appealing and hauling everyone together in Paris.

We’ll see though, and you could very well be right that there needs to be a formal reprimand/warning for them for the rest of the season. That would not be a surprise or unreasonable, along with paying court costs imho, but to me anything further that would literally take more points away from them or in any other way harm their Championship run should not be necessary.

@robbie – Yes, by “suspended” I meant it in the that, as you say, “do it again and here’s what will happen”, and, as you also say, a penalty that takes championship points from Red Bull would be unnecessary and therefore highly unlikely. That said, the FIA are not unknown for flashes of savagery, with the disqualification of McLaren from the WCC in 2007, and that of Schumacher from the 1997 WDC as examples.

The full report of the hearing is set to be published on Thursday, but tomorrow, although I’m not sure about this, the hearing will rule on whether further sanctions are justified and the FIA subsequently has the option to implement them (although, as I say, I’m not sure – I skim read something on Autosport about the Court of Appeal process weeks ago but I’m not sure if it’s applicable given the fact Ricciardo’s already been disqualified). Personally, I will maintain that I am expecting some form of formal reprimand or suspended penalty as a further illustration of the FIA’s authority.

@william-brierty Makes sense that as you imply there should be a formal conclusion to the issue, as well as an adjustment if deemed necessary to the decision of the stewards of the day in Australia.

Just for fun I must have you on a bit regarding your MS 97 reference. Imho MS got off lightly. Mosely had threatened the grid that any ‘funny business’ in terms of interference with the two protagonists vying for the WDC would result in a 3-race ban at the start of the 98 season. MS himself did just that, but no ban, merely lost his standing in the Championship which he had already lost for himself anyway, and got to keep his wins and poles. ie. a slap on the wrist. Still trying to figure out how you lose your standing ie. your points, but keep wins, but anyway that’s what it is.

@robbie – I actually wrote several articles about Schumacher’s ’97 disqualification, as it was so significant at the time. If we’re being honest it had no effect on the overall character of Schumacher’s career, but at the time it was important, with Schumacher having just proved to world that he was by far and away the best racing driver in the world by taking a Ferrari substantially slower than the Williams to championship contention at the final race. It was an achievement deleted from the history books by the FIA for a move that was at best clumsy and at worse malicious, but in no way dangerous. Yes it was a formal “slap on the wrist” accounting to nothing, but as formal penalties go, it is by far the most significant example and opened a can of worms of question regarding whether championship ranking even mattered when the championship wasn’t won, or whether Schumacher’s win still counted and whether the FIA were wrong to threaten disproportionate on those that interfered with the championship contenders. Ah controversy, I really truly loved being a journalist in F1 in the mid-nineties…

@william-brierty So interesting that you were a journalist in F1. I am not a journalist but wouldn’t have worded it that the FIA deleted from the history books a season that saw MS take his car to Championship contention in the last race…it was MS’s whack on JV that did that, no matter the consequent penalty, and brought to the fore his whack on DH in 94 and the suspicions that it was intentional back then too, and not merely a situation where MS couldn’t control the car as was claimed.

Among my ongoing thoughts about that season and others surrounding it are to remind people that MS didn’t do what he did single-handedly. I believe no driver has ever had more money, time, and resources put into winning WDC(s), including the extra veto power and money with which Ferrari was plied, not to mention a guaranteed non-competing teammate. Sure many have argued MS earned that kind of treatment on a team, but whether or not that is the case is moot…he had more advantages hand over fist to get cars into Championship contention than any driver ever has. So every coin having two sides, for me he may have smashed the records, but I have to look at how that was done. For sure there was never any shortage of controversy when it came to MS.

@robbie – And yet the advantage he had over Irvine, which was MAHAHOOOSIVE, and that over Barrichello when he wasn’t getting brow-beaten by the team, was all Schumacher. For me, and for many others at the time, 1997 saw Schumacher climb the ladder of greatness, with many, including me, thinking Jerez was overplayed, and that it was simply the dark side of ambition. The fact that Senna took Prost out in ’90, that Prost turned in on Senna in ’89 and that Vettel disobeyed team orders last year doesn’t change the fact that they are some of the greatest racing drivers of all time. Schumacher was simply a competitive animal, and as someone who met Michael, has spoken to him, and has someone who has stood beside the racetrack as he danced the car past, I can’t help but roll my eyes when anyone tries to portray him as anything other than what he is: a true sporting legend. Hang in there Michael, this is the most crucial stint of your life…

One point: I was not a journalist in that that was how I made money, I was more of a “hooray-Henry” following the F1 circus around and voluntarily submitting the occasional opinion article when something juicy came up…

@william-brierty Fair comment. Lol on the MAHAHOOOSIVE. Can’t say I agree with everything you have said…eg. ‘sporting’ legend, or ‘competitive’ animal without a competing teammate, but who am I to argue against your opinion based on your experience. As much as I disagreed with the MS/Ferrari way, and the driving tactics, and my opinion also coming from being a massive JV fan, I certainly share the sentiments of only wishing the best for MS and his family in his incredibly difficult struggle.

Shock horror! Not a surprising result, always looked like it was heading this way. Unlucky for Dan, but innaccurate sensor or not, all the other drivers were running to the readings so it’s possible some of them were disadvantaged too. But for God’s sake can the FIA please sort out the issue with the sensors and have an accurate and reliable method of calculating fuel flow which is the same for everyone, if they haven’t already done so.

I don’t want to hear any more about fuel sensors until the inevitable end of season position debates (“But Daniel only finished 15 points behind Seb so should actually be 3 points ahead!”, etc) ;)

They have reportedly already instructed Red Bull, STR and Lotus to stop using sensors where the fitting has been adjusted by the teams to change their positioning in the cars from Barcelona on, this is likely to solve a considerable chunk of “faulty sensor” issues @keithedin, although I have also seen reports of the teams looking at fuel supplier Total to check if anything in the fuel causes issues (STR also uses Total, even if they officially have Cepsa as their supplier)

@optimaximal@andae23 Fabrice Lom said that 90 percent of the problems with the sensors are on Renault engines that use Total fuel. That’s not a coincidence. Renault didn’t follow the guidelines from Gill Sensors to place the sensors. He also suggested that some chemical components of Total’s fuel may have affected the sensors.